Covid-19 Cepiva

Spajky

Majstr
7. jun 2017
2.076
458
83
Obala

Matey

AlterZavarovalničar
6. sep 2007
24.787
5.681
113
awMQyb1_700bwp.webp
 
  • Haha
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: sousis in Yogi

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
17.700
1.734
113
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: kajpace

Pbutec

100. registrirani uporabnik
20. jul 2007
13.446
2.353
113
Marlbor
Zdaj pa bomo tudi v Sloveniji malo hitreje dvignili precepljenost, saj se bo cepilo le z enim odmerkom pfizerja.
 

Ytbnd

Guru
2. mar 2010
9.321
787
113

In November, Pfizer claimed their vaccine was ‘95 per cent effective’, and applied to the FDA for its Emergency Use Authorisation, which requires less data than standard approvals and is issued based on a lower standard of proof.

95 per cent efficacy, however, does not mean that 95 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be protected from COVID-19. Pfizer conducted their clinical trial on nearly 38,000 people, took those who showed symptoms of COVID-19 within a week after the second dose, and tested them for SARS-CoV-2 to confirm the diagnosis. Out of these, 172 testing positive had received a placebo shot, while just 9 had received the BioNTech vaccine. Although the percentage of volunteers who fell sick was tiny in both the vaccinated and placebo groups (0.04% and o.83% respectively), the relative difference between them was calculated as the vaccine’s ‘efficacy’.

If there was no difference between them its efficacy would be zero; if none of the people falling sick had been vaccinated, the efficacy would be 100 per cent. In contrast, the actual effectiveness of the vaccine in real-world circumstances is very different from its efficacy rating calculated from such clinical trials. As the AstraZeneca trial of people exclusively under the age of 55 revealed, volunteers are likely to constitute a very different demographic from the people who, because of age or infirmity, are likely to need the vaccine. In the Pfizer trial, 42 per cent were over 55, and 20 per cent had at least one co-morbidity. In contrast, among the 41,600 deaths in hospitals in England attributed to COVID-19, 92 per cent were over 59 and over 95 per cent had co-morbidities.

Not only that, but after the first dose was administered, the difference between those given the vaccine and those given a placebo was far lower, with 50 ‘cases’ of COVID-19 in the former and 275 in the latter, which reduced the efficacy of the vaccine to 82 per cent. Between the first and second dose the difference was even smaller again, 39 to 82, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of just 52 per cent.
 
19. jul 2007
1.559
556
113

In November, Pfizer claimed their vaccine was ‘95 per cent effective’, and applied to the FDA for its Emergency Use Authorisation, which requires less data than standard approvals and is issued based on a lower standard of proof.

95 per cent efficacy, however, does not mean that 95 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be protected from COVID-19. Pfizer conducted their clinical trial on nearly 38,000 people, took those who showed symptoms of COVID-19 within a week after the second dose, and tested them for SARS-CoV-2 to confirm the diagnosis. Out of these, 172 testing positive had received a placebo shot, while just 9 had received the BioNTech vaccine. Although the percentage of volunteers who fell sick was tiny in both the vaccinated and placebo groups (0.04% and o.83% respectively), the relative difference between them was calculated as the vaccine’s ‘efficacy’.

If there was no difference between them its efficacy would be zero; if none of the people falling sick had been vaccinated, the efficacy would be 100 per cent. In contrast, the actual effectiveness of the vaccine in real-world circumstances is very different from its efficacy rating calculated from such clinical trials. As the AstraZeneca trial of people exclusively under the age of 55 revealed, volunteers are likely to constitute a very different demographic from the people who, because of age or infirmity, are likely to need the vaccine. In the Pfizer trial, 42 per cent were over 55, and 20 per cent had at least one co-morbidity. In contrast, among the 41,600 deaths in hospitals in England attributed to COVID-19, 92 per cent were over 59 and over 95 per cent had co-morbidities.

Not only that, but after the first dose was administered, the difference between those given the vaccine and those given a placebo was far lower, with 50 ‘cases’ of COVID-19 in the former and 275 in the latter, which reduced the efficacy of the vaccine to 82 per cent. Between the first and second dose the difference was even smaller again, 39 to 82, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of just 52 per cent.
Vsebinski povzetek tega?
Čisto tako na blef vprašam, kaj te moti? Bi si želel npr. študijo, ki bi imela v placebo skupini samo osebe 65+ in v placebo skupini ne bi bilo "the percentage of volunteers who fell sick was tiny" : 0.83% in bi bil ta delež npr. 83 %? Bi te taka študija zadovoljila?
 

mirsi

Predator
4. jun 2014
2.688
1.821
113
Zdaj pa bomo tudi v Sloveniji malo hitreje dvignili precepljenost, saj se bo cepilo le z enim odmerkom pfizerja.
Mariborskega doktorja tudi dve dozi nista zaščitili.

Sicer pa, ali niso govorili že prej, da so se cepljeni okužili, pa so nas takrat šopali, da cepivo prime šele po 4 tednih.
 

mirsi

Predator
4. jun 2014
2.688
1.821
113
Se čehi nas bodo prehiteli s Sputnikom.


Nic cudnega, glede na to, kaksni bedaki nam vladajo.
Zakaj bedaki?
Če želijo epidemijo čim dlje vlečt, imet čimveč okuženih, potem so potem so ukrepi vlade čisto pravi.
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: jendomen

Floki

Guru
6. sep 2007
7.439
1.413
113

NE , v primeru izrednih razmer ne potrebuješ odobritve EME. Ampak potem prevzame odgovornost država članica. Itak pa je ta izgovor brezvezen ker za vsak cepljeje je vsa odgovornost na tistemu ki se cepi. Še niti enega primera ni bilo v sloveniji da bi bila odobrena odškodnina ker je imel nekdo hude posledice po cepljenju.
 

brane_new

Guru
10. feb 2008
7.061
1.030
113
NE , v primeru izrednih razmer ne potrebuješ odobritve EME. Ampak potem prevzame odgovornost država članica. Itak pa je ta izgovor brezvezen ker za vsak cepljeje je vsa odgovornost na tistemu ki se cepi. Še niti enega primera ni bilo v sloveniji da bi bila odobrena odškodnina ker je imel nekdo hude posledice po cepljenju.
Torej, kako je v takih izrednih razmerah naročanje opreme?
Ali: Tu je pa drugače, ker ste vi/ni naših na oblasti.
 

brane_new

Guru
10. feb 2008
7.061
1.030
113
Orbana za razliko od naših tepcev boli kita, kaj pravi Eu na vse.

se po tiho strinjaš z orbanom?
p.s. nega boli rama, ne kita. cepi se namreč v ramo.




pri nas gre za tiste, ki se cepijo preko vrste. manj škode.